Wednesday, December 13, 2017
The Recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel
The historic announcement on December 6, 2017 that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel evoked both expressions of support and waves of protest. However, it seemed that many did not understand the full significance of what President Trump described as the “recognition of reality," as he stated explicitly that the American position on the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty had not changed, and said indirectly that American recognition of Jerusalem's status as Israel's "capital" only applied to that part of the reality that is not disputed by the Palestinians and Arab states. Moreover, while Israeli expressions of satisfaction with the American President's move are justified, if the leaders of the neighboring Arab states that are considered US allies – Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia – analyze his words carefully, they will understand that they contain nothing that contradicts the Arab Peace Initiative.
In an historic announcement on December 6, 2017, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The first country to recognize Israel after its declaration of independence in 1948 was also the first to formally recognize Jerusalem as its capital. Throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East, religious and nationalist movements have challenged the validity of states and borders defined in the past. Therefore, there is more than symbolism in this move by President Trump, who inter alia based the recognition on the ancient connection of the Jewish people to its capital.
As expected, President Trump's announcement evoked both expressions of support and waves of protest. The Muslim and Arab world, divided for many years, found in the President’s announcement something to divert attention from the frustration, despair, and disappointment caused by the failure of the awakening called the "Arab Spring.” The announcement boosted reconciliation efforts between the Palestinians’ two ideological-geographical sectors, as it was easy for all parties involved to unite around the subject of Jerusalem. In Israel, the debate intensified between supporters of concessions in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria for the sake of full peace with the Palestinians, and those who proclaim the unquestioned right of the Jewish people to all these places. And in the European Union, two member states prevented a joint statement by foreign ministers criticizing the announcement.
However, it seemed that although many had heard and/or read the declaration, they had skipped a key sentence or were ignoring its significance. Trump said: "Today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more, or less than a recognition of reality." The reality that was partly described by the President himself is that all the official institutions of the State of Israel are located in the western part of the city. However, Israel also applied Israeli law to the land that was annexed to Jerusalem in 1967, including East Jerusalem and surrounding villages and refugee camps. A partial response to any charge that the President avoided the reality that was created in the city after 1967 was given by Trump when he said: "We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved."
Trump's words were intended to placate the Palestinians, as he explicitly stated that the American position on the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty had not changed, and indirectly said that American recognition of Jerusalem's status as Israel's "capital" only applied to that part of the reality that is not disputed by the Palestinians and Arab states. These words should have also cooled the reactions of many Israelis in the various political camps who rejoiced at the declaration, but both inside and outside Israel the more modest meaning was ignored. Some in Israel even compared the statement to the century-old Balfour Declaration, recognizing the Jewish people's right to a national home in the Land of Israel – although the two are only identical in one aspect: the recognition by a leading power of the Jewish people's right to a national home, and the recognition of the Jewish state's right to determine its own capital.
President Trump's announcement prompted harsh surprising reactions, beyond what might have been expected, particularly since it is not clear if they are based on an accurate reading of his text. Some of the reactions came from leaders and foreign policy decision makers around the world, who specifically referred to a change in the status quo in Jerusalem, allegedly deriving from the announcement itself. The reactions were surprising because some of them came from the representatives of countries who recognize the reality cited by Trump and conduct themselves in this reality exactly like the United States. The President of the State of Israel hosts heads of state and their representatives at his residence in Jerusalem, as does the Prime Minister. Heads of state have given speeches at the Knesset in Jerusalem, including President of Egypt Anwar Sadat. Foreign ambassadors, who are obliged to submit their credentials to the sovereign power of the country to which they are assigned, do so at the President's residence in Jerusalem. Official institutions, such as most government ministries and the Knesset, were moved to Jerusalem a short time after Israel declared its independence, and since the time of Israel’s second President, his official residence has been in Jerusalem. The United States President stated that he recognizes this reality, and by doing that is not changing the status quo that has existed since the establishment of the state in 1948. He noted that he had given instructions to start preparations for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, although he did not indicate a timetable.
Those who still rely on Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly from 1947 (the partition plan) to justify their opposition to Trump's move should be reminded that according to the resolution, ten years were allotted for the creation of a "separate entity" ("corpus separatum") for Jerusalem; this period ended on September 30, 1958. Others, like High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, rely on Resolution 478 of the Security Council, adopted in 1980 following Israel’s passage of the Jerusalem Law. According to the resolution, members of the UN were called on not to recognize this law or other Israeli actions that changed the character and status of Jerusalem. The United States itself abstained from voting, and in addition, Trump declared that there was no intention to change the status quo. However, if the United States does indeed implement the President's intention to move its embassy to Jerusalem, it could breach the resolution, as it called on states that had located their embassies in Jerusalem to move them. Resolution 478 itself did not refer to the reality in which UN members that recognize Israel and have diplomatic relations with it do so in Jerusalem, and certainly did not call for a change in this reality, wherever the embassies are situated.
Why was this US announcement made now? And how will President Trump's declaration affect the political process between Israel and the Palestinians?
Regarding the timing, Trump presumably wished to fulfill his campaign promise to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem, and was in a dilemma when faced with signing a postponement of this measure, required by American law every six months. As for the second question, Trump himself explained that even though his predecessors had refrained from moving the embassy since Congress had passed the law embassy in 1995, peace between Israel and Palestine was no nearer. At the same time, the President has stated that he remains committed to promote a peace agreement and would do everything in his power to achieve peace; he has also declared his desire to achieve the "ultimate deal" between the Palestinians and Israel, and mentioned a plan or initiative to be presented to both sides. In the wake of the announcement, opponents of the President's statement, including the Palestinian negotiators, have rejected the US as an honest broker. On the Israeli side, some contend that the United States would now demand concessions to the Palestinians "in return for" the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In any event, the role of the United States in the rounds of talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been controversial since 1973, but both sides without exception have asked Washington for assistance to close the gaps in their positions at various stages of the negotiations. Demonstrations of anger and burning the American flag will not change the reality that the only international element with a degree of influence on Israel's positions in the negotiations with its neighbors is the American administration.
Following the President's announcement there were limited demonstrations among Arabs in Israel, in East Jerusalem, and in the territories. A Salafist organization in Gaza fired rockets towards Israel. In the course of actions taken by Israel to curb the demonstrations near the Gaza border and in the response to the rocket fire, four Palestinians were killed. In other areas people were injured, but overall, the restrained responses of the IDF and the Israel Police helped keep the demonstrations under control. At this stage, it is not clear whether the harsh criticisms of Trump's declaration will lead to a new wave of lone attacks. Larger demonstrations were held in many cities in the Arab and Muslim world. The forthcoming visit to the region by United States Vice President Mike Pence will likely prolong the wave of demonstrations and protests, but at this stage it seems that in the absence of any concrete move to transfer the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the protests will die down, and with them the danger of violent actions. The customary reduction in political and diplomatic activity as the calendar year draws to a close could also help cool the heated sentiments.
If indeed there is an American or any other initiative that could serve as the basis for renewed political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, its chances of success depend only minimally on US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The contents of the initiative, the internal political situation in Israel and among the Palestinians, the personal status of the leaders on both sides, and the situation in the Middle East and the international arena will all exert far greater influence. Moreover, while Israeli expressions of satisfaction with the American President's move are justified, if the leaders of the neighboring Arab states that are considered US allies – Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia – analyze his words carefully, they will understand that they contain nothing that contradicts the Arab Peace Initiative.
Apart from expressing gratitude to the US President, Israel has a role beyond keeping the territory quiet, particularly if there is an American initiative to renew negotiations that refer to Jerusalem, be the initiative toward a full permanent settlement or partial agreements with the final objective of two states for two peoples. Israel can adopt a policy that helps strengthen President Trump and promotes his moves.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Whether you're American, German, Asian or Australian, coming to Israel to work with Israelis will be a unique experience. In order to enjoy your stay, keep focused and not be offended (or offend) in this high pace, energetic and complex culture - you should come prepared.
Business culture in Israel is far more casual and informal than what you are probably used to. Israelis are straightforward, assertive and persistent people. Business is fast-paced and often conducted with a sense of urgency. At the same time, personal connections are of the highest importance as colleagues and business partners make an effort to get to know each other, socialize and have coffee together.
"Israeli society is a poly-chronic culture (relationship-oriented), in contrast to American, British or German cultures which are mono-chronic (rule-oriented). In Israel's relationship-oriented culture, open feelings and warm, honest emotions are primary, while efficiency, planning and objective facts may be secondary." *
Here are some points to take into consideration upon embarking on your next Business adventure to Israel:
1. Communication : Interaction among colleagues is very direct, spontaneous, open and almost family-like. If you are used to formality and to speaking about issues indirectly, avoiding being too honest or using a lot of understatements, you may find that your Israeli colleagues are unsure and even confused as to your true intentions. Israelis appreciate honesty and clarity and will expect you to do the same.They do not deal well with vagueness or subtlety and often interpret them as dishonesty, which will make it much harder to gain their trust.That's why Israelis may often come across as blunt, aggressive or even rude, but be assured- this is not at all the case!
2. Work Situations: At work, Israelis will usually opt to resolve differences through direct communications, face to face, which may include the use of confrontation, speaking loudly and straightforward criticism. Hand gestures and facial expressions are common.Verbal communication is used to express feelings, thoughts, ideas but also to maintain a working relationship that deals with problems quickly and efficiently. You may often find that after such an encounter, both sides resume their former relationship almost immediately and feel satisfied and ready to move on with the job at hand.
3. Working style: Israelis value quick action to resolve problems, and tend to choose improvisation over careful planning and over detailed working schedules. Plans can change at the last minute to be made more efficient and suit the specific situation. They will always prefer to take initiative over waiting through a long process of bureaucracy which is widely interpreted as a waste of valuable time. Flexibility, innovation, taking initiative and adaptability are highly respected traits as well as the ability to work in a team and communicate openly with your co workers.
4. Punctuality and keeping time: Israelis usually have a more flexible view of time, which subsequently leads to a decreased use of time-tables and agendas as well as imprecise starting and ending times for meetings. Although time tables are made and schedules are part of every project, in reality everyone seems to be running a little late. Meeting a deadline is well appreciated but somehow everyone expects it to be moved a bit before the project ends. Another time-related issue in Israeli meetings is the typical lack of agenda. In some cultures, an agenda might be circulated before the meeting, and it will be closely followed as the meeting progresses. In most Israeli work environments this will not be the case.This however, will actually have very little or no effect at all on the content or efficiency of the meeting which usually results in getting things done, having decisions made and bringing closure to unresolved issues.
" This might be perceived by other cultures as easy-going and relaxed, or alternatively inefficient and inaccurate." **
5. Hierarchy at the work place: Israelis interact very openly across organizational hierarchies, and do not attribute significance to various types of authority in the company **. The atmosphere in most companies is very professional, yet pleasant and friendly at an interpersonal level. The rigid hierarchy you may be accustomed to isn't the norm in Israel. As in every company, there is a hierarchical management structure, but even a new employee can freely communicate with any rank of management, as long as the matter is presented in a professional manner or if help or support are needed in a certain area. Depending on their importance, decisions are made during either staff or work team meetings. Everyone has the right to express their feelings and opinions about the topic in question as meetings usually take the form of open discussions. If the supervisor is present, people may spontaneously suggest ideas, give their opinions or even complain. Unofficial communication is vastly encouraged. There's no over use of bureaucracy and the employee doesn't have to go through a chain of command to speak with someone.
I would like to conclude by sharing a quote:
"Israel is very "civilized" within the framework of a struggling and pressurized Middle Eastern nation that strives very hard to be "Western."Israelis have perceptions of time, space and values that are completely different from those of North Americans. Israelis see Americans as artificial and square, when they are actually just showing respect. Americans think Israelis are arrogant, rude and pushy, when in reality they are being direct and honest. Israel is a very small country whose population is one big family. In a family people can be as direct and honest as they want. But now that family members are selling their goods and services outside the clan, Israelis are adapting."
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Monday, June 19, 2017
Sunrise dawn breaks ! [apostrophe]
Rikkki de Riiik was a little boy a year ago [comma]
But now entering rip roaring stay out late manhood
Merry de La Grey no longer a little girl arching for womanhood [comma]
Hers was mixed feral tale of tears and hope
Hers, a life upwards Life’s slope [apostrophe]
two stories crossed: one scene, one act [colon, comma]
pretty lass, scrawny lad lacking tact [comma]
him a sapling uprooted, replanted in Steviekins home [comma]
her the grey and white rose everyone wanted
her heart was loud, but lips were mute [comma]
while he was lost in voiceless youth
tho’ Cupid’s bow a shot released [apostrophe]
time wept for two lips creased
a week, a month… wore out Time’s soles [comma, ellipsis, apostrophe]
a glance, a smile, two whispering souls; [comma, comma, semi-colon]
and still no telling word was risked
until away the lad was whisked
Merry grieved for her youth , he mourned (but time heals all) [comma, parenthesis]
… one year plus, the lad stands tall [ellipsis]
once little lass, now jewelled queen: [colon]
Both Best Bubbalehs of Steve serving his every whim and need [apostrophe]
two stories crossed: same scene, same act [colon, comma]
a bejewelled queen fine man with tact [comma]
He an oak deep-rooted. She wanted [emdash, endash, full stop]
but red collar with silver name tag [exclamation]
both symbols of love and responsibility of the Bard of Bat Yam, Poet Laureate of Zion ?! [question mark, exclamation]
LikeShow More ReactionsComment
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Zion's Dawn Arises Again
Light peaks through the sky cracks.
Dawn along the Mediterranean paradise once more,
I lift my head, light rays softly caressing me.
Pleased that for a new day has begun,
but the soft graze of light on my cheeks nudge me forward.
Along southwards the desolate white umbrelled Bat Yam Beach
#OYVeyDonaldTrump elevated the Theory of Arseholes to new levels . In a another made of Fox TV performance he issues more Trumpetism (ridiculous claims and assertions) and Screws Planet Earth. #AmericaHangsItsHeadInShame again #RIPPaxAmericana again.
ANGELA MERKEL AND THE INSULT OF TRUMP’S PARIS CLIMATE-ACCORD WITHDRAWAL
During the past few days, Merkel seemed to have had it with Trump, in some significant measure because of his flashy contempt for the climate deal and for his fellow world leaders.PHOTOGRAPH BY BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP / GETTY
On Wednesday, at around the time that news outlets were reporting that President Donald Trump had decided to pull America out of the Paris climate accord, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was at the Berlin airport, greeting Premier Li Keqiang, of China. As their national anthems played, Li and Merkel stood on a red carpet that had been cut to look like a giant arrow. It seemed to point definitively away from Trump. There was a connection between the two moments that was more than symbolic. China has made it clear that, with America’s abdication, it sees Paris as a vehicle for its efforts to assert itself as a leader of the international community. (Whether this means that it would also make sure that carbon emissions fell is another matter.) And Merkel, during the past few days, seemed to have had it with Trump, in some significant measure because of his flashy contempt for the climate deal and for his fellow world leaders.
That contempt was well on display on Thursday afternoon, when Trump confirmed America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In his remarks, delivered in the Rose Garden, Trump attacked not only the terms of the deal but also the goodwill of those who argued for it. He spoke like a man unravelling a conspiracy or a con job. The climate accord had been pushed by America’s economic rivals, whose real reason for wanting us to stay in was “so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound,” and by “global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.” Paris was just a “scheme to redistribute wealth outside of the United States.” Only Trump really cared about the environment, and he would get a much better deal for it.
The only question now is how far away from America Merkel’s frustration leads the Chancellor, her country, and her continent. It’s not that she hasn’t tried; she even invited Ivanka Trump to Berlin, flattering her all the way. Last week, as Merkel endured Trump’s company at nato and G7 meetings in Belgium and Italy—along with his boasts about the “unbelievable chemistry” that the two of them supposedly shared—she and the other leaders present made time to talk to him about the importance of protecting what had been gained for the planet in Paris. She said, later, at a press conference in Taormina, Italy, at the close of the G7, that, of all the points raised at the conferences, one that was “very difficult, not to say very dissatisfying, was the entire conversation on the subject of climate change.” That is, one person, representing one country, had dissatisfied her: “Here you have a situation in which six—if you count the European Union, seven—stand as one. And no one has any idea whether the United States is even going to stay in the Paris accords.” Indeed, one of the many ways in which Trump seems to have thoroughly annoyed his European counterparts is with his manufactured drama around the announcement of the Paris decision. After all, there wasn’t much mystery, given that Trump had put an end to American efforts to comply with Paris, back in March, when he issued an executive order discarding, among other things, President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The other world leaders just wanted to know if Trump would at least pretend to respect the pact and, perhaps, the idea that international pacts have value. They had all travelled to Belgium and Italy precisely so that important matters could be shared. Couldn’t he just tell them? But, perhaps, that would have given them a chance to tell Trump to his face that it was not, as he claimed again in his remarks on Thursday, “a very, very successful trip. Believe me.”
One explanation for Trump’s mishandling of the Europeans is that he is unwilling to accept that there are powerful people in the world who do not think that climate change is a joke, or a hoax, or something to just prattle about to naïve voters. Merkel, at her press conference, said, “This Paris climate accord is not just some accord or the other. It is a central accord in defining the contours of globalization.” She added, “I believe that the issue of Paris is so important that one simply can’t compromise on it.” But Merkel’s concerns may only matter to Trump if he sees it as an opportunity for bullying, or as ammunition in the trade war he seems ready to Twitter-start—or maybe just as a chance to get back at her for what she had said the day after arriving back in Germany from the G7, under a tent at a campaign beer rally in Bavaria.
The rally was in support of candidates for the Christian Social Union (the Bavarian sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union) ahead of the parliamentary elections in September, so Merkel spent a good deal of time on ordinary political concerns: the rent in Munich, taxes on medium-sized businesses, shout-outs to various allies (“our friends in Schleswig-Holstein!”). But she also talked about how her recent travels had reminded her “what a treasure Europe is,” and how a strong Germany relied, for example, on a strong France. As the crowd applauded, Merkel paused to adjust the two microphones in front of her and then moved to the toughest part of her remarks—the words that, it seemed, she had really come there to say.
“The time in which we could fully rely on others is a bit in the past,” Merkel said. “I have experienced that in the past several days. And, because of that, I can say now that we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands—naturally, in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors wherever that may work, with Russia and other countries.” It was striking that America was just another name on the list. Merkel continued, “But we must understand that we must fight for our future, as Europeans, for our own fate—and that I will gladly do with you.” The “you” there was the Germans in the tent.
Earlier in the speech, Merkel had emphasized that “we’re working for the people in Germany.” That included upholding values such as freedom of expression and religious tolerance, and being ready to help refugees—although she said that, since the refugee crisis of 2015, “we’ve tightened things up.” But it also meant focussing specifically on German dreams. On this, she was speaking to the German mainstream. Her opponent in the September elections, Martin Schulz, the leader of the more left-of-center Social Democratic Party, gave a speech at a Party gathering in a far less measured tone, in which he directly called Trump’s treatment of “our Chancellor” unacceptable, indeed unbearable. He later called Trump “a destroyer of all Western values such as we have never before experienced in this form.”
For many Europeans, and for people on many continents, addressing climate change speaks to the most fundamental of values. Trump spent so much time congratulating himself on his “historic” trip that he may have been surprised by the reaction of Merkel and others. He may not have thought that it was very nice. After Merkel’s beer-tent speech, he tweeted, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” Something will change. After Trump’s sour, shrill withdrawal from Paris, though, Merkel isn’t likely to be the one who is alone. The day before Li came to visit her in Berlin, Merkel had welcomed the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Merkel is a busy woman.